ASHAGAR ALI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHA PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2005 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, by which Petitioner's claim for promotion from the post of Beldar to the post of driver has been rejected. While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that number of persons similarly situated working on the post of Beldar have been promoted to the post of driver, but claim of the Petitioner has been ignored.

(2.) During course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to show any rule which provides promotion of a Beldar on the post of driver. The insistence has only been laid down by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that similarly situated persons have been promoted on the post of driver, but the Petitioner has been discriminated which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that the decision of the authority contrary to the rules or in absence of any rules, cannot be made basis for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to pass same order as has been passed in other cases. For issuing a writ of mandamus, the Petitioner must rove his case that he falls in the ambit of any statutory provision and the authorities have refused or shown inaction, to follow the Rules. The wrong decision not supported with any statute cannot be made basis for issuing a writ of mandamus. The Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Ors. v. NDMC and Ors., 1996 1 JT 647 held that "citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: